2015 (2) TMI 197 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT Mumbai affirms CIT(A)'s decision on additional evidence & capital gains tax liability

ACIT 12(1), Mumbai Versus M/s. Asian Marble Industries

ACIT 12(1), Mumbai Versus M/s. Asian Marble Industries - TMI Issues involved:Admission of additional evidences during appellate proceedings, Date of conversion of capital asset to stock in trade, Applicability of section 50C, Taxability of capital gains on conversion, Cross objections by the assessee.Admission of Additional Evidences:The Revenue appealed against the admission of additional evidences by the Ld. CIT(A) during appellate proceedings. The AO did not specifically request proof of the conversion date from the assessee, and the AO's query on the revised return validity was raised late. The Ld. CIT(A) found the AO did not grant sufficient opportunity for the assessee to present evidence. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed the additional evidences, considering the lack of opportunity and the genuineness of entries showing conversion on 01.04.01.Date of Conversion of Capital Asset:The Ld. CIT(A) determined that the capital asset was converted to stock in trade on 01.04.01 based on accounting entries and evidence of land development activities. The Ld. CIT(A) noted approvals and formalities indicating the conversion date, disagreeing with the AO's view of conversion on 30.09.03. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the revised return was valid, and section 50C did not apply as no sale occurred, and stamp duty authorities did not assess the land value.Applicability of Section 50C:The Ld. CIT(A) reasoned that since no value was assessed by Stamp Duty Authorities and no stamp duty was imposed, section 50C did not apply. The Ld. CIT(A) also considered the High Court's decree on property ownership to determine the fair market value as of 01.04.81. The Ld. CIT(A) concluded that section 50C was not applicable, and the fair market value on 01.04.81 was valid for computing capital gains.Taxability of Capital Gains on Conversion:The assessee's cross objections challenged the tax on capital gains from converting the capital asset to stock in trade. The Ld. CIT(A) upheld tax liability as the land was conveyed for development, constituting a transfer under section 2(47) of the Act. The cross objections were dismissed as the assessee had voluntarily offered tax on capital gains, estopping them from disputing the transfer date.In conclusion, the ITAT Mumbai upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision on the admission of additional evidences, date of conversion, and the non-applicability of section 50C. The tax liability on capital gains was affirmed, and the cross objections by the assessee were dismissed. The appeal by the Revenue and the cross objections were both dismissed by the tribunal.